![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("Wayne Paul" wrote)
It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage transition allow faster speeds. Can you reword this (for some of us "Huh?" lurkers) especially the wing to fuselage transition part? How good/efficient are Cherokee, Ercoupe, Cessna (aluminum & rivet) wing root fairings vs. what could be achieved with complex composite shapes? Same question with the wing shape - to hold up the same plane, ALL else being equal? So ballpark - how much more efficient would the use of complex composite construction (wings and wing root transition areas) make these planes - ALL else being equal? WAG - same power, weight, fuselage, etc - what improvements would these planes see in speed, climb, stall, or fuel burn numbers? Thanks. Montblack |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Montblack" wrote in message ... ("Wayne Paul" wrote) It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage transition allow faster speeds. Can you reword this (for some of us "Huh?" lurkers) especially the wing to fuselage transition part? How good/efficient are Cherokee, Ercoupe, Cessna (aluminum & rivet) wing root fairings vs. what could be achieved with complex composite shapes? Same question with the wing shape - to hold up the same plane, ALL else being equal? So ballpark - how much more efficient would the use of complex composite construction (wings and wing root transition areas) make these planes - ALL else being equal? WAG - same power, weight, fuselage, etc - what improvements would these planes see in speed, climb, stall, or fuel burn numbers? Thanks. Montblack Let me make this as simple as possible by simply giving you an example. My HP-14 (http://www.soaridaho.com/Schreder/N990_Borah_Mt.JPG) has a 52 foot wingspan. The wings were built with flush rivets and have been smoothed by adding an epoxy/balloon mixture. This is mid 1960 construction techniques using aluminum construction. My lift to drag ratio is around 36 to 1. However, new modern sailplanes with composite construction and modern airfoils that only have 15 meter (just under 50 feet) wingspan have glide ratios of around 48 to 1. So with both of my old HP-14 and an ASW-27 (http://tinyurl.com/8lecz) loaded to have a gross weight of 800 lbs. At best glide speed my HP-14 would have about 22 lbs of drag while the ASW-27 would have less then 17 lbs of drag.. So the ASW-27 is 30% more efficient then my 14. If my wings did not have flush rivets and were not smoothed the difference would be even greater. The same is true with power aircraft. Just compare the Flight Design CT (http://www.flightdesignusa.com/) with a Cessna 152 or a Cirrus with any earlier conventionally constructed aircraft of similar weight and horsepower. To take these in steps, the wing is the most important, the fuselage shape is also important and the junction between the wing and fuselage. I am familiar with a smooth wing metal sailplane that was re-winged with a modern airfoil. The new wing, has the same area and span. The original wing/fuselage combination produced a 38 to 1 glide ratio. The updated combination produced a 42 to 1 glide ratio. That is a 10 percent improvement. Going from a round riveted wing to a modern airfoil should provide a 15+% improvement. Wayne HP-14 "6F" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In article ,
"Montblack" wrote: ("Wayne Paul" wrote) It is much easier to build a laminar flow airfoil and complex shaped wing to fuselage transition using composite construction. These wing have a better lift to drag ratio. The decrease in drag aerodynamic drag of the wing and static drag decrease associated with the wing/fuselage transition allow faster speeds. Can you reword this (for some of us "Huh?" lurkers) especially the wing to fuselage transition part? How good/efficient are Cherokee, Ercoupe, Cessna (aluminum & rivet) wing root fairings vs. what could be achieved with complex composite shapes? Same question with the wing shape - to hold up the same plane, ALL else being equal? So ballpark - how much more efficient would the use of complex composite construction (wings and wing root transition areas) make these planes - ALL else being equal? Paul, Go to airliners.com or any other site that will have "new" and "old" airplanes. Pay particular attention to the wing-fuselage junction. On the old airplanes, the fuselage seems to be just stuck to the wing. On the new aiplanes, there are HUGE fillets fore and aft of the wing. This really became a design consideration in the mid-1980's. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
("john smith" wrote)
On the new aiplanes, there are HUGE fillets fore and aft of the wing. This really became a design consideration in the mid-1980's. Wheel pants, gap seals, ....and HUGE new fiberglass fillets (fore and aft). Are they part of everyday speed-mod packages? If so, what is the "anecdotal" gain, after installing (just) them? I've read reports on wheel pants, on gap seals, and on Power Flow exhaust systems, but not on aftermarket fillets for the GA fleet. http://www.powerflowsystems.com/ Montblack airliners ...net? :-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:11:29 -0500, "Montblack"
wrote: ("john smith" wrote) On the new aiplanes, there are HUGE fillets fore and aft of the wing. This really became a design consideration in the mid-1980's. Wheel pants, gap seals, ....and HUGE new fiberglass fillets (fore and aft). Are they part of everyday speed-mod packages? If so, what is the "anecdotal" gain, after installing (just) them? I've read reports on wheel pants, on gap seals, and on Power Flow exhaust systems, but not on aftermarket fillets for the GA fleet. http://www.powerflowsystems.com/ Knots2U sells a wing/fuselage fairing. http://knots2u.com/28WR.htm I have it on my Cherokee, but cannot discern the exact performance gain as it was added in conjunction with a number of other mods. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
fixed wing or rotary wing? | Craig Campbell | Rotorcraft | 23 | March 27th 07 06:16 AM |
High wing to low wing converts...or, visa versa? | Jack Allison | Owning | 99 | January 27th 05 11:10 AM |
composite wing, wing spars | Dave Schneider | Home Built | 4 | May 21st 04 05:35 AM |
Fuel Dip Tube for Hershey-bar Wing Cherokees? | Bob Chilcoat | Owning | 3 | May 3rd 04 10:29 PM |
Mylar tape wing seals - effect on wing performance | Simon Waddell | Soaring | 8 | January 1st 04 03:46 PM |